"It's been argued by you and others that legalized polygamy would be better than random adultery, but I don't see why we have to tolerate either. Certainly adultery can be punished (and deterred) by divorce; but I would favor even greater penalties for adultery (including fines and imprisonment: let judge and jury decide how much or how little) because it is a violation of the marriage covenant, according to which the spouses have freely and publicly agreed to be sexually faithful to each other."
Here we completely agree. I think you should be able to contract for marriage and have it mean something, too. I think a breach of a marriage contract ought to carry penalties, just as you do.
I just happen to believe that the restrictions on who can make such a contract ought not be limited the way you'd prefer. And I think you'll find that the legal status of who has a right to contract is fairly open.
Marriage only "brings in public aspects having to do with property, inheritance, taxation, insurance, and all the many aspects of child-begetting, child-raising, and child custody when there is fertility involved" because government is now involved in all those things. What did we do before government dealt with them on the basis of legally registered marriage? Let people deal with them as they would. It is difficult to argue that the results were worse then than they are now.
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made "separation of church and state" a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Congress, state legislatures and public referenda have statutorily determined polygamous, pederast, homosexual, and incestuous marriages are unlawful. No Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage is required to regulate "practice" according to the Reynolds decision.
Marriage is a religious "rite," not a civil "right;" a secular standard of human reproductive biology united with the Judaic Adam and Eve model of monogamy in creationist belief. Two homosexuals cannot be "monogamous" because the word denotes a biological procreation they are not capable of together; human reproductive biology is an obvious secular standard.
"…In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices... So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed..."[Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 8 Otto 145, 24 L. Ed. 244 (1878).]
See also:
Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 792, 34 L. Ed. 478 (1890). Revised as 140 U.S. 665, 11 S.Ct. 884, 35 L. Ed. 592 (1891).
Strossen has no intention of supporting polygyny or polyandry, it would overturn their beloved "separation of church and state" decision. She was just lying to hopefully get support for homosexual monogamous marriages. They would have no problem stabbing the idiot polygamy advocates in the back once they get what they want.
Furthermore, I don't think by some of the comments I have seen or heard anywhere that people are capable of discerning by the foggiest notion what is at stake with this, especially so-called "Libertarians."